Comments on: Why AFACT v iiNet is important

By: igor

igor — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:29:19 +0000

Also iiNet happens to be the largest ISP that doesn’t count uploads. That’s why I have an account - because I can upload whilst downloading and to build up my ratio on private trackers. Here is my reflection on the court case: http://www.somethingorothersoft.com/?p=129

By: Stilgherrian

Stilgherrian — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:47:56 +0000

Further to the question "Surely all ISPs have naughty customers? Why pick on iiNet?"... While iiNet, Australia's third-largest ISP, refuses to pass on AFACT's infringement notices, it's not alone in that. Neither Telstra nor Optus, numbers one and two in the marketplace, do so either. So, why sue iiNet and not Telstra or Optus? My guess -- pure speculation -- is that the smaller company might have been seen as an easier target, more likely to submit in the face of aggressive legal action. Others have speculated that iiNet's user base is more likely to engage in illegal downloads of entertainment like movies and TV programs, since it's primarily households rather than businesses, whereas Telstra and Optus have many business users. Certainly iiNet does offer plans with high monthly download allowances rather than target the cheap-and-cheerful end of the market -- but they're hardly alone. Still, if that speculation is true, then AFACT's claims against iiNet could perhaps be made to look more serious with bigger, scarier numbers. In court yesterday, it emerged that there are contractual arrangements between some movie companies and BitTorrent. Perhaps there are also contractual arrangements with the biggest ISPs which would make suing them awkward? Both ZDNet.com.au's Liam Tung (@LiamT) and The Australian's Andrew Colley (@AndrewColley) have been live-tweeting the trial. As an aside, iiNet director Michael Smith bought 10,300 iiNet shares yesterday. Feeling confident, is he?

By: Moira Byrne

Moira Byrne — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 05:15:47 +0000

I agree.
If consumers really want specific software, music or films will purchase them. It seems to me that people copy the things they don’t want to spend money on, because they don’t consider they have that value.
The notion of ‘stealing’ is problematic because it doesn’t actually deprive others of something. It’s hard to make a case for ‘lost earnings’ when people can read the obscene amounts of money the major industry players make!
I don’t see how iinet profit. I hope iinet win.
Disclosure: I have never copied unlicenced software, music or films via the internet either, but it’s probably because of a lack of technical skill and an overdeveloped sense of potential guilt, rather than any iota of sympathy for AFACT and its ilk.

By: John Bennetts

John Bennetts — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:50:43 +0000

FACT’s cure appears to me to be worse than the disease.

Disclosure: I have never copied unlicenced/unauthorised software, music or films via the net, thus I am only aware of the problem via news reports.